> On 18/04/2013 3:32 AM, fom wrote:>> On 4/18/2013 1:25 AM, WM wrote:>>> On 18 Apr., 03:52, gus gassmann <g...@nospam.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>> When changing this to {(1), (1, 2), (1, 2, 3), ...} nothing is added.>>>>>>>> Yes, well. What's a bunch of parentheses (or braces) among friends?>>>> Just like 1 + 5*8 = (1 + 5)*8, I suppose.>>>>>> Again a confused sequence of thoughts leading to a wrong analogy. Not>>> astonishing from your side. Find a natural numbers that is in {(1),>>> (1, 2), (1, 2, 3), ...} but not in {1, 2, 3, ...}? Or vice versa? Of>>> course you would be able to answer that question but you will not>>> publish it. I know.> > As long as Mueckenheim does not even understand the meaning of "in", it> is pointless trying to discuss anything with him.

Yesterday I had another look into the copy of his "bestseller" collectingthe dust in a bookstore I sometimes visit. There I read about Mückenheim'sway of introducing quantifiers. It involved, as an example, the solutionsof the equation x^3 = 1, and the two assertionsa: There exists a real solution of that equationb: All solutions of that equation are real After introducing \lambda as an abbreviation for "solution of the equationx^3 = 1" the above assertions are reformulated, using what Mückenheim seemsto think are quantifiers, asa': E\lambda: \lambda is realb': A\lambda: \lambda is real